^^I think he's just making the point that the NSW govt can take carte blanche action against those who have no electoral power.There is no penalty to the governmentIn a similar way Cyclists have no electoral power. You could argue the government actually furthers it's approval rating by attacking us, such is our marginalised public image.

Can we defend ourselves on health, safety and welfare grounds? That is my question.

mikesbytes wrote:Just to clarify, the topic isn't about greyhound racing, its about how it exhibits the vulnerability of cycling to political decisions and what can we do to protect cycling from this vulnerability

The fact that this post had to be made saddens me greatly. I honestly thought that this threads positioning in safety and NOT the Cafe would have been sufficient notice as to the intent.

Cheers to those who DID get it.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

warthog1 wrote:^^I think he's just making the point that the NSW govt can take carte blanche action against those who have no electoral power.There is no penalty to the governmentIn a similar way Cyclists have no electoral power. You could argue the government actually furthers it's approval rating by attacking us, such is our marginalised public image.

Can we defend ourselves on health, safety and welfare grounds? That is my question.

I can understand the intent of the argument, I cannot understand how the two subjects can be linked? Greyhound racing has the greyhound at the bottom of the totem pole; the welfare of the dogs is what's at the centre of the issue. I cannot see any comparable actions by cyclists? Sure we're marginalised; but not because we're cruel to animals (or vegetables or minerals for that matter). We're a nuisance. No government is going to outlaw us based on being a nuisance.

On OH&S.....now that's another matter entirely. My personal opinion is that's a subject best not even touched on. Even Human would agree with me here A serious risk assessment of cycling would see it banned tomorrow. Mulger Bill.....how would cycling stack up using Rail standards?

fat and old wrote:Sure we're marginalised; but not because we're cruel to animals (or vegetables or minerals for that matter). We're a nuisance. No government is going to outlaw us based on being a nuisance.

Maybe you can't see the analogy because you've elevated the other animals to a position on the totem pole above fellow humans.

There are many things which are outlawed because they create a public nuisance --- nuisance to the animal homo sapiens.

There's a sub-species within the group of motorist homo sapiens who have a severe antipathy towards cyclists. They'd readily argue that cyclists activities are cruel to their enjoyment of the roads. And as righteously as any animal libber might rail against greyhound trainers (and all kinds of farmers etc.,.), these cyclist hating motorists can and do rail against cyclists. And provably have caused the NSW government to legislate against us.

If you can't see the success of their attacks, and defend against them, how can you be certain they won't go so far as to effectively ban cycling from the road ? That's what many of them would like.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

wombatK wrote:Maybe you can't see the analogy because you've elevated the other animals to a position on the totem pole above fellow humans.

I don't deny I put the other animals higher up the totem pole. Its not hard. When the horses start whipping humans around 3 odd kilometres of track so other horses can bet the family grocery bill on the outcome maybe I'll change that opinion.

MB wants us to see past the reasons why greyhound owners are being marginalised and cut from the herd and only consider the end result in relation to our own activities. I am saying you can't; there has to be a reason for the government to take a banning action. You yourself agree with this, the only disagreement i see is over how much influence the anti cycling lobby has, and how badly cycling can possibly be portrayed to provoke a banning. I can't see it happening.

warthog1 wrote:I put forward a probably implausible avenue for action earlier. I was hoping a resident legally versed member could let me know if feasible or not. ( I'm not that hopeful regarding a positive answer )You'd expect it was covered otherwise there'd be any number of scenarios open for litigation.Perhaps an accident on the stretch of road where separated infrastructure has been removed?

No, the government cannot be sued for failing to maintain infrastructure or failing to provide it. It would be quickly bankrupted by rent-seekers with a sense of entitlement.

They can only be sued for actively creating a risk where none existed before - eg, installing a gate on a cycleway, leaving it closed at night or in periods of poor light and failng to provide adequate warning of its existence and closure.

Our own Alex Simmons was involved in a significant case involving this scenario and while losing a lower leg is never a good thing, he got (excuse the supremely inappropriate pun) a barely adequate pound of flesh from those responsible in local government becasue he was able to prove they had created a risk. That is different from failing to mitigate an existing one not caused by them.

Personally I'd love to stick one up Duncan Gay but it's never going to be a legal possibility.

Rail safety is heavily evidence based, emotion won't stop prangs. Most serious injury/death scenarios involving riders have a high MV component and an even higher MV fault factor, each one would be investigated thoroughly as an individual incident and action taken to remove or reduce the cause of the problem. Only then do we consider whether the "innocent" could have done anything different.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

trailgumby wrote:No, the government cannot be sued for failing to maintain infrastructure or failing to provide it. It would be quickly bankrupted by rent-seekers with a sense of entitlement.

They can only be sued for actively creating a risk where none existed before - eg, installing a gate on a cycleway, leaving it closed at night or in periods of poor light and failng to provide adequate warning of its existence and closure.

Our own Alex Simmons was involved in a significant case involving this scenario and while losing a lower leg is never a good thing, he got (excuse the supremely inappropriate pun) a barely adequate pound of flesh from those responsible in local government becasue he was able to prove they had created a risk. That is different from failing to mitigate an existing one not caused by them.

Personally I'd love to stick one up Duncan Gay but it's never going to be a legal possibility.

Bugger. I'd have hoped it might be applicable where they've removed infrastructure that previously existed. I guess not. As you say the flood gates would be opened in all sorts of dodgy scenarios. We are truly screwed then.

If 20% of motorists were found to be breaking significant traffic laws would the Govt ban motorists? Not a chance they would be voted out next election. They know that when dealing with a significant % of the population that they need to fix the problem rather than banning it.

As I said, we are not a significant % of the population, the govt can do whatever they want as our vote will not impact them

mikesbytes wrote:I don't know the stats but I'm guessing that greyhound racing fans and those receiving employment is something like the same % of people as those who are passionate about riding bicycles in NSW

My feeling here is that the govt is quite happy to impose a blanket ban on the interests of a sector of the community where there are insufficient voting power to make a difference and if it was a more significant sector of the community, rugby league fans for example, then it would of worked thru the problems until a solution was found.

you raise a very valid point Mike, but I disagree that you can equate greyhound racing with cycling in NSW.

the major similarity is the lack of political power wielded by both groups. that I'll give you. but the differences are greater. frankly, when you look at the evidence, it's amazing that greyhound racing has been allowed to continue for as long as it has. the wholesale slaughter of dogs, the cruelty, the money laundering, the hardship associated with gambling. it is an industry with minimal virtues that has been banned in most of the world. Australia is in the minority with allowing greyhound racing.

cycling isn't comparable to greyhound racing. sure, cyclists are unpopular. but that wasn't the trigger for banning greyhound racing. rather, it was the horrific scale of animal cruelty being sanctioned by the industry. I don't think most people have properly gotten their heads around just how bad it was and is. we're talking wholesale destruction. the live baiting thing was a side issue in comparison.

mikesbytes wrote:If 20% of motorists were found to be breaking significant traffic laws would the Govt ban motorists? Not a chance they would be voted out next election. They know that when dealing with a significant % of the population that they need to fix the problem rather than banning it.

I guess this issue with comparing a group of people who individually "break significant traffic laws" to a group of people who were responsible for killing at least 58,000 (might have been 48,000 - either way it's a metric f-tonne) perfectly healthy dogs over a 10 year period is that you cannot. Systematic abuse vs individual choice to disregard a law...yeah, not even close.

The entire industry was complicit to the killings, from the top down. Even if 80% of the group were not involved in the killing, the findings found the majority knew of the practice and turned a blind eye to it. The few who did raise it as an issue had their complaints ignored by the governing body - when you cannot trust the governing body to ensure reform takes place, it's easy to see why they chose a blanket ban.

Speeding, or whatever you define as a "significant traffic law" vs inhumane and barbaric treatment of animals....again, not even close.

DG1984 wrote:I guess this issue with comparing a group of people who individually "break significant traffic laws" to a group of people who were responsible for killing at least 58,000 (might have been 48,000 - either way it's a metric f-tonne) perfectly healthy dogs over a 10 year period is that you cannot. Systematic abuse vs individual choice to disregard a law...yeah, not even close.

You call the annual slaughter of 5,800 perfectly healthy dogs "systematic abuse", elevating it to some special status that you then can't find in the cycling context.

So what do you call the quarterly slaughter of 2 million perfectly healthy cattle, 129,000 perfectly healthy calves, 2 million sheep, 5.9 million lambs, 1.2 million pigs, and 155 million chickens ... all perfectly healthy ?

Undoubtedly some of those rejoicing in the fate of the greyhound industry would describe this as systematic abuse and would jump for joy if that could be ended too. But I suspect that's an extreme fringe position (e.g. the Animal Justice Party got barely 1% of the senate vote nationally). So the livestock slaughter aka systematic abuse will continue and not be banned by the NSW government.

What you describe as systematic abuse is not a distinctive point that makes the governments behavior have any less meaning or no meaning for the cycling world. It's a straw man fallacy you've built.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

wombatK wrote:So what do you call the quarterly slaughter of 2 million perfectly healthy cattle, 129,000 perfectly healthy calves, 2 million sheep, 5.9 million lambs, 1.2 million pigs, and 155 million chickens ... all perfectly healthy ?

wombatK wrote:So what do you call the quarterly slaughter of 2 million perfectly healthy cattle, 129,000 perfectly healthy calves, 2 million sheep, 5.9 million lambs, 1.2 million pigs, and 155 million chickens ... all perfectly healthy ?

DG1984 wrote:I guess this issue with comparing a group of people who individually "break significant traffic laws" to a group of people who were responsible for killing at least 58,000 (might have been 48,000 - either way it's a metric f-tonne) perfectly healthy dogs over a 10 year period is that you cannot. Systematic abuse vs individual choice to disregard a law...yeah, not even close.

You call the annual slaughter of 5,800 perfectly healthy dogs "systematic abuse", elevating it to some special status that you then can't find in the cycling context.

So what do you call the quarterly slaughter of 2 million perfectly healthy cattle, 129,000 perfectly healthy calves, 2 million sheep, 5.9 million lambs, 1.2 million pigs, and 155 million chickens ... all perfectly healthy ?

Undoubtedly some of those rejoicing in the fate of the greyhound industry would describe this as systematic abuse and would jump for joy if that could be ended too. But I suspect that's an extreme fringe position (e.g. the Animal Justice Party got barely 1% of the senate vote nationally). So the livestock slaughter aka systematic abuse will continue and not be banned by the NSW government.

What you describe as systematic abuse is not a distinctive point that makes the governments behavior have any less meaning or no meaning for the cycling world. It's a straw man fallacy you've built.

Given my diet is >70% vegetarian I do find the practice of farming animals for meat exceedingly overkill, for lack of a better word. We don't need to eat that much meat - hence why I make a choice to not eat it on a daily basis. Just like I find the practice of killing animals (chickens being a prime example) that don't fit a certain critera (ie cannot lay eggs) which have an untimely end abhorrent.

As for the straw man, if you'd bother to read any of the report that the NSW Govt commissioned into the greyhound industry you'd know and understand the the systematic abuse was one of the key reasons for the ban - but sure, it's not a distinctive point at all.

I also didn't mention the "cycling world" so I am at a loss to understand your point there, all I've done is respond to a single post in this thread to highlight the comparison between killing 58,000 animals to "breaking significant traffic laws" as ridiculous. When people start profiting off "breaking significant traffic laws" maybe we can come back and compare the two?

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.